Images are subject to copyright
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Advocate Dr. Rau P S Girwar is an esteemed advocate and has been involved in the field of law since 2010 and has contested cases in the Supreme Court of India and various high courts including the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court, Indore High Court and various district and sessions courts.
He has an excellence and experience in civil, criminal, constitutional and service matters and has a wide range of experiences in various matters including money laundering, narcotic and murder cases.
This article has been written with assistance of his junior Kushaatula Puhanian, who is a second year law-student studying at the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi.
INTRODUCTION
The constitution of India is known as the law of the land and all the laws made are to be made or to exist being consistent with the Constitution of India. There are times when one law overlaps the other and creates a confusion in the minds of the people and it is where the courts step in and clarify the same.
The same situation can be seen with the existence of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clarified the same time and again. This article talks about the conflict between section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 and article 125 and 219 of the constitution of India, 1950.
WHAT IS A CONTEMPT?
The contempt of Court is a legal violation committed by an individual by disobeying a judge or otherwise disrupting the legal process in the Courtroom.[1] The Contempt of Courts Act does not define the contempt itself but talks about the existence of two types of contempt: civil contempt and criminal contempt.
CIVIL CONTEMPT: Willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order. Writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.[2]
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT: the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
- Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
- Prejudices, or interferes or tends to prejudice or interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
- Interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course if any judicial proceeding, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;[3]
LIMITATION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT
While generally, the limitation period of every proceeding in the court has been provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a special act which provides for the limitation for proceeding against contempt of court.
Section 20 implies for a one year limitation for the proceeding against contempt of court.
THE CONFLICT
While section 20 of the contempt of court act, 1971 provides one year limitation for initiation of proceedings within one year from the date of act of contempt, Article 129 and 215 provide for the following
Article 129 reads as “The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” [4]
Article 215 reads as “Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” [5]
The main conflict lies in the limitation period that has been provided by S. 20 whereas no specific limitation has been mentioned in the Constitution which is the law of the land. This has been explained and reiterated by various High Courts umpteen times.
The Supreme Court of India held in the case of A.Paul Pandi v. A.Karthik[6] in this regard that the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that the action initiated either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo moto, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged violation of court’s order, the Courts can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. However, such powers ought to be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, more so to mitigate the gross injustice if any occurred and the inherent powers ought to be exercised sparingly and not in routine manner. The High Courts cannot make the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act illusory. The limitation prescribed is to be scrupulously followed in all cases and the provisions as to be read harmoniously along with A. 215 of the Constitution. One step further, this Court has to emphasize that the Contempt of Courts Act is a Special Act and the same will prevail in respect of filing of the contempt application under the very same Act. The general powers conferred under the Constitution has to be read along with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Act is to be construed as the procedure for initiating contempt contemplated, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Constitution.
In the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian[7] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since Section 20 of the Act is a special law prescribing a period of limitation, different from the limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, which happens to be the general law, the special law would naturally override and take precedent over the Limitation Act- the general law. Thus while exercising the power of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India it has to be exercised in consonance with Section 20 of the Act.
In the case of Hiralal Dixit v. State of U.P.[8] it has been held that power to be sparingly exercised but where public interest demands it, the Court will not shrink from exercising it.
In the case of Subrata Kundu v. Kshiti Goswami[9] it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to initiate contempt proceedings but this has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Supreme Court in the said case by necessary implication held that the said Act 1971 is the procedure prescribed by law and the provision for limitation in the said Act has to be made applicable.
It was reiterated in the case of Tmt. Pushpa v. Thiru. Karunakaran[10] that The High Court on exceptional circumstances, on arriving a conclusion that a gross injustice to the society or the case is of public importance, then the inherent powers provided under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised without reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act .
The limitation of suo motu contempt proceedings was held to be one year by the Supreme Court in case titled Maheshwari Peri v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General[11] wherein an article was published in a magazine in the year 2005 and contempt cognizance taken in 2008, so this issue was dealt under limitation prescribed S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the High Court initiated suo motu action on dated 28.04.2015 and the impugned article was published on 10.11.2008. hence, the Supreme Court had reiterated the limitation being one year and the ratio decidendi qua to S. 20 was adopted from the case of Pallav Sheth (supra).
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/contempt-court.asp
[2] S. 2(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[3] S. 2(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[4] A. 129, Constitution of India.
[5] A. 215, Constitution of India.
[6] Contempt Petition No.3147 of 2014 Dated 21.11.2014.
[7] (2001) 7 SCC 549.
[8] AIR 1954 SC 743.
[9] AIR 2010 Cal 44.
[10] W.P.No.2551 of 2018.
[11] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2016.